Calcutta HC commutes death sentence, says justice must not be 'bloodthirsty'

Time of India

9 hours ago

KOLKATA: Calcutta high court's Jalpaiguri circuit bench has commuted the death sentence of 22-year-old
Aftab Alam
to life imprisonment without parole for 20 years, ruling that justice must not be "bloodthirsty" and punishment should focus on reform, not revenge.
Aftab had been convicted of murdering his maternal uncle Mehtab during a robbery attempt at the victim's Dhupguri home in north Bengal on July 28, 2023. The trial court sentenced him to death, calling his act a "betrayal" against the man who had sheltered him after his father's death.
Trial court relied 'more on emotion than facts': Cal HC
But Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar said in a 47-page ruling issued Aug 1 the trial court relied "more on emotion than facts" and failed to prove that Aftab's conduct met the "rarest of rare" threshold required for capital punishment.
"The recent alteration in the names of jails from 'prisons' to 'correctional homes' is for a reason," the bench wrote. "It reflects the transition from the basic bloodthirsty instinct of society to take revenge to a more civilised policy.
.. One should hate the offence and not the offender."
HC said Aftab had not lived with his uncle for years, having moved to New Delhi before returning to Dhupguri. "The 'position of trust' approach cannot be applied," the judges wrote, adding that the trial judge's assumptions about betrayal lacked evidence.
"At the time of the offence, the appellant was long gone from the shelter of his uncle and was no longer under his tutelage."
Mehtab was stabbed to death in his sleep while wife Moumita survived the attack. Aftab was joined by five alleged co-accused, all minors. The court said the killing appeared to be "a spontaneous reaction" rather than a premeditated act of vengeance, citing the use of Aftab's Aadhaar card to check into a hotel nearby before the robbery.
Rejecting the trial court's claim that Aftab was a "veteran criminal", the bench said his actions showed "unprofessionalism" typical of immature offenders. "Lack of remorse in gestures & postures of the accused at trial cannot be an indicator that he cannot be reformed," the court said.